This article examines the evolving EU policy against human trafficking, especially trafficking that targets migrant women for sexual exploitation. It maintains that even though action against trafficking is now firmly on the EU agenda, current policies excessively focus on repressive measures and lack attention to the broader setting in which the exploitation of migrants takes place. This means that current EU anti-trafficking policy remains ineffectual, and may in some cases even be counterproductive. I IntroductionThis article takes stock of the policies developed in the European Union against one of the most blatant contemporary manifestations of gender inequality, namely trafficking in women for sexual exploitation. It is now a decade since the first European Commission Communication on trafficking was adopted (after the first European Conference on trafficking in 1996), and many measures then envisaged are now in place. Therefore it is a good time to take a critical look at where, from the point of view of gender equality, the last decade has taken measures against trafficking-and, more tentatively, what, if anything, this anti-trafficking action might reveal about the state of gender equality in the EU.This article argues that while trafficking in women for sexual exploitation has experienced an almost meteoric rise onto the EU agenda, it is still not framed as a phenomenon of gender (as well as racial and class) inequality despite the obvious concerns over gendered harms that it raises. European gender equality law has, of course, evolved into an impressive body of law from its humble origins, and gender equality is now recognised as a fundamental principle of Community law. Yet the lack of attention to the gender equality implications of issues such as trafficking illustrate how gender equality in the EU setting is still largely confined to the realm of the EC in particular in the sphere of employment, where the primary beneficiaries are EU citizen women. Trafficking, which primarily (if not exclusively) affects non-EU women, is instead regarded as a matter or organised crime and irregular migration. This goes hand in hand with a very limited approach to anti-trafficking action: the adopted policies focus on

The article considers the future prospects of the struggle for gender equality in light of the growing appeal and electoral success of parties embracing populist nationalism and anti-immigration as their platform. Considering many such parties are known for viewing the promotion of gender equality as unnecessary or even harmful-except when they highlight immigration as a threat to female emancipation-it is important to explore what, if anything, the electoral success of populist-nationalist parties means for the direction of gender equality policies. The article examines this question in the Finnish context. Though the Finnish state's commitment to gender equality is well-established, questions can be asked about the future prospects of gender equality policies in light of the electoral rise of the populist anti-immigration party Perussuomalaiset (or 'True Finns'), especially since the party joined government in May 2015. The article scrutinises the recent record of PS in parliament and government, elucidating on the challenges that populist-nationalist parties create for gender equality in (allegedly) 'womenfriendly' welfare states. The case study particularly focuses on gender equality in the context of balancing work and family and freedom from violence, discrimination and harassment. It raises questions that are of broader relevance to the future of gender equality in Europe, considering the Nordic states have been viewed as models for a gender egalitarian society and frontrunners in the promotion of gender equality within the EU.

This article uses one case study to explore the use of criminal hate speech provisions against populist politicians. In a high-profile Finnish case, a populist politician was found guilty of hate speech after a four-year criminal process. Though the prosecution was ultimately successful, the various problems with the case helped boost the political popularity of the accused who was turned into a well-known public figure and member of Parliament. The case might thus be seen to warn against tackling populist politicians by means of criminal law. However, further analysis of the political context and a comparison with the Dutch prosecution against anti-immigration politician Geert Wilders complicate this conclusion. This article examines the consequences of hate speech prosecutions of politicians and sheds light on the conditions under which they can achieve (some of) their aims. The case also has lessons for other jurisdictions about when hate speech prosecutions of politicians are likely to be successful in terms of countering prejudice and disempowering those who spread it for electoral purposes.

Feminist legal efforts to make sense of the external migration policies of the European Union (EU) have focused almost exclusively on the EU's initiatives against trafficking in women. This article examines one of the more neglected areas of EU immigration policy-the return of 'illegal immigrants'. It analyses the so-called 2008 Returns Directive in the light of the multidimensional inequalities experienced by migrant women, which affect their migration status and expose some of them to the threat of removal. Owing to insecurities over external migration, the Directive constructs even the most vulnerable migrants as a threat to be controlled and is likely to result in detrimental consequences for many migrants, and in particular already vulnerable women who are likely to be further disadvantaged by it.

No abstract